Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Dutch Central Bank Sale Announcement Imminent? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (21333)	7/6/2004 4:46:32 PM
From: sea_urchin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 75721

Gustave, I know we have discussed this previously, but I came upon this this piece which more or less describes the way I see 9-11, the events that led up to it and the subsequent wars. gulf-news.com >> As the Bush administration struggled to respond to Al Qaida's devastating attacks of 9/11, members of this Zionist cabal, led by Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, seized the opportunity to impose their agenda. Their number-one foreign policy goal was the overthrow of Saddam, whom they had identified as a major threat to Israel. << In my opinion, however, the Bush administration didn't merely "struggle to respond to Al Qaida's devastating attacks of 9/11", they were, together with their Israeli friends, directly responsible for it. Hence the smooth flow of events subsequent to 9-11 and in accord with the PNAC. But the overall picture generally coincides with my view on what has occurred over the years. In particular, I agree with this: >>The Bush administration's alliance with the Israeli Right and its American supporters has resulted in the greatest American foreign policy disaster of modern times. It has made the world a very dangerous place indeed.<<

To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (21333)	7/12/2004 11:46:30 AM
From: mcg404	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 75721

Gustave, I think i like your version better than my own. Although i'm not sure if hegemony and control of the oil aren't one and the same and this is just two ways of saying the same thing. Here's some comments on Fahreheit 911 you might agree with: One of the first things I did when I got back from vacation was to go see Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11. It’s a brilliant piece of propaganda, entertaining and funny, and it skewers the president deliciously. But am I the only one to notice that in one critically important way, it entirely misses the boat and gets nearly everything wrong? Maybe this has been said before—I’ve hardly read all of the criticism of Moore—but if so, I haven’t seen it. Moore totally avoids the question of Israel...Here are some questions for Moore: If Bush is so “in the pocket” of Saudi Arabia, why is he Ariel Sharon’s strongest backer? Why, when he had Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah down at the Texas ranch a few years ago, did he flip off the Saudi’s peace plan? And most important, why did he invade Iraq—since Saudi Arabia was strongly opposed to the U.S. invasion of Iraq? Why did he launch his Iraqi adventure over Saudi objections, with many of his advisers chortling that Saudi Arabia would be “next”? Why did he stock his administration with militant neocon crusaders who see Saudi Arabia as the main enemy? Why, Michael? I have to conclude the Michael Moore is either blind, or a coward. Blind, if he can’t see Bush’s craven ties to Israel, driven by the neocons and the Christian Zionists and Bible-thumping fundamentalists like Jerry Falwell, who consider Israel Jesus’ next stop and see Saudi Arabia as Satanic. Or cowardly, because he knows it and decided not to mention it. Is that because attacking Israel is too hard? Moore’s photo-montage of Saudi princes borders on the racist, showing Bush & Co. clinging to grinning, Semitic-looking Arabs in flowing white robes one after another. Would we stand for a similar, racist-leaning montage of Bush palling around with grinning, Semitic-looking Jews in skullcaps? 'Course not. More important, Moore completely misses the political boat. Perhaps that’s because he relies so heavily on Craig Unger and his book, House of Bush, House of Saud , which makes the same “error.” tompaine.com john